Voice For Liberty

Category: Kansas state government

  • In Kansas, STAR bonds vote uplifted cronyism over capitalism

    Recently both chambers of the Kansas Legislature passed similar bills authorizing a five year extension of the Kansas STAR bonds program. In the House the bill passed 92 to 31. In the Senate the vote was 27 to 13.

    The STAR bonds program provides a way to redirect sales taxes to project developers instead of the state treasury, which is where most people think taxes go — or should go.

    Not so with STAR bonds. In the words of the Kansas Department of Commerce, the program offers “municipalities the opportunity to issue bonds to finance the development of major commercial, entertainment and tourism areas and use the sales tax revenue generated by the development to pay off the bonds.” This description, while generally true, is not accurate. A proposed STAR bond district in Wichita includes much area beyond the borders of the proposed development, including a Super Target store, a new Cabela’s store, and much vacant ground that will probably be developed as retail. The increment in sales taxes from these stores — present and future — goes to the STAR bond developer.

    I asked a number of members of the Kansas House and Senate to explain their votes in favor of extending the STAR bonds program. It was difficult to extract answers, but I finally a received a few.

    One member explained to me that some votes are “ugly.” Yes, indeed I would say, including this member’s. But that’s no reason not to vote correctly in favor of limited government, capitalism, and free markets. Sometimes members have to vote according to their campaign promises.

    One member explained to me that the bonds that will be sold are bought by private investors, and there’s nothing wrong with that. That’s true, but stopping the thought process there is naive. How are payments on these bonds to be made, we have to ask. The answer is payments are made, at least partially, from the captured sales tax revenue. That’s revenue not earned by the developers. Instead, it is revenue collected by government in the form of taxes that consumers have no choice but to pay. From the developers’ viewpoint (and pocketbook) it is a gift from government that others in similar situations are not able to receive. These gifts of money from government to business are known as cronyism. It is Kansas being business-friendly, which is not the same as capitalism-friendly, and it makes our state poorer and less able to compete.

    Some made the argument that STAR bond proceeds can be used only for certain allowable expenses such as “horizontal” expenses. Arguments such as these are commonly made to support government subsidy programs. Supporters argue that since the use of the funds is restricted, this somehow makes it allowable, even benign. But this is nonsense. If I gave you $100 with the stipulation that you could spend it only on Mondays, would anyone deny that you are wealthier by $100? That is, of course, if you were planning to spend money on Mondays. And if you weren’t, couldn’t you shift some of your spending to Mondays?

    This is the nonsensical nature of these arguments. Still, many purportedly fiscal conservatives are persuaded.

    Simply put, the STAR bonds program turns over taxation to private parties for their own benefit. When we are willing to turn over taxation to the benefit of private interests, we have to wonder a few things:

    First, why do we need taxation at all, if we can simply excuse some from participating in the system?

    Second: Can something be moral if it is not applied equally to everyone?

    Third: Sometimes it is claimed that without the government subsidy, a project is not economically feasible. Developers have lots of ways to make a project appears that it needs government help, and they have multimillion dollar motives to do so. But when something is truly not economically feasible, that means that the judgment of the marketplace is that the product or service is not desired — at least not at a price necessary to make the project profitable. But not to worry — our fearless government leaders will override the judgment of free people trading freely in markets. They will enact a forced transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the developers whose ideas can’t make it in the market. These leaders include Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, Secretary of Commerce Pat George, the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate, and chairs of key committees, except (surprisingly) Les Donovan, chair of the senate tax committee.

    For more on the harm to capitalism of the STAR bonds program, see Kansas STAR bonds vote a test for capitalism.

    In the House of Representatives, there were two explanations as to why some members voted no. The first one reads: “I vote NO on HB 2561. Star Bonds are a form of failed economic policy that Kansas should distance itself from. It is time for government to stop picking winners and losers and instead promote economic policies and a lower tax structure that all Kansans can benefit from. Star bonds are a form of centralized planning that favors a few at the expense of other taxpayers and businesses. These bonds divert needed money from police, fire, roads, and other core functions of government for 10, 20, and even 30 years. Mr. Speaker, I vote NO, choosing to support the taxpayers who voted me in office.” This was in the names of Pete DeGraaf, Virgil Peck, Jr, Randy Garber, Charlotte O’Hara, Owen Donohoe, and Connie O’Brien.

    A second statement read: “HB 2561 goes against my principles of free enterprise and limited government. By redirecting tax revenue to a particular business, STAR bonds create an unequal playing field. STAR bonds favor a few at the expense of other taxpayers and businesses. These bonds divert money needed for core functions of government for decades into the future. It is time for government to stop picking winners and losers and instead promote economic policies and a lower tax structure from which all Kansans can benefit. Mr. Speaker, I stand with the voters that elected me. I vote NO on HB2561.” This was in the names of Jim Howell, Dennis Hedke, TerriLois Gregory, Brett Hildabrand, Greg Smith, Kelly Meigs, Amanda Grosserode, Jana Goodman, Lance Y. Kinzer, Mitch Holmes, Marc Rhoades, Kasha Kelley, Dan Collins, and Tom Arpke.

    In the House, there were a number of members who voted in favor of the STAR bonds program in spite of proclamations of fiscal conservatism. Many of these members are looking for ways to reduce the growth of Kansas government and taxes. Some are in high leadership positions. Yet, somehow they didn’t see the harm in voting for the STAR bonds program. This list includes Steve Brunk of Wichita; Richard Carlson of St. Marys and Chair of the House Taxation Committee; Mario Goico of Wichita; Phil Hermanson of Wichita; Kyle Hoffman of Coldwater; Steve Huebert of Valley Center; Dan Kerschen of Garden Plain; Mike Kiegerl of Olathe; Marvin Kleeb of Overland Park and vice-chair of House Taxation Committee; Brenda Landwehr of Wichita; Peggy Mast of Emporia, who is Assistant Majority Leader; Mike O’Neal of Hutchinson, who is Speaker of the House; Les Osterman of Wichita; Joe Patton of Topeka; Scott Schwab of Olathe; Arlen Siegfreid of Olathe, who is Majority Leader; Gene Suellentrop of Wichita; and Brian Weber of Dodge City.

    In the Senate, these votes came from Terry Bruce of Hutchinson; Dick Kelsey of Goddard, Jeff King of Independence; Garrett Love of Montezuma; and Susan Wagle of Wichita.

  • Kansas should improve economic climate, rely less on incentives

    By Maurice McTigue, Vice President and Distinguished Visiting Scholar, Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He participated in the forum produced by Kansas Policy Institute this week.

    Kansas policymakers left for recess on the heels of a very disappointing jobs report last week. According to the latest jobs report, the state ranked fourth in terms of jobs lost with a 5,700 decrease in employment. As legislators prepare to return in a couple weeks, they should consider what’s best for the Kansas economy. That is, pursue goals that make Kansas a better place to do business than any other state.

    Kansas has a history of giving incentives to attract business. Despite this, businesses are leaving, and taking jobs and revenue with them. Legislators should look at all the hoops businesses must go through in Kansas and decide what hurdles can be removed to eliminate uncertainty and make the state more attractive for investment. Instead of asking what subsidy Kansas can give firms to get them to do business here, policymakers should ask existing business what it needs to operate more efficiently and effectively.

    Certainty is a key component to sound economic development because it allows businesses to make permanent plans and decisions.

    If Kansas had an economic climate that made it the best place to do business, regardless of outside contracts, defense restructuring, or inside subsidies, Boeing might not be leaving in 2013. If businesses understand the tax and regulatory landscape, and can count on it to be permanent, they can make good decisions. Outside factors are offset by a predictable and stable economic climate that allows them to be profitable. Certainty keeps jobs in Kansas creating revenue, not incentives.

    The problem with incentives is that they are not free, and result in a cost to someone else since they come from tax revenue. The referendum on the Ambassador Hotel tax exemption in Wichita illustrates this lose-lose situation. If the hotel needs a tax credit to do business, it was likely not competitive in the first place. Businesses and taxpayers naturally oppose unfair advantages, and once subsidies are gone, the business may fail anyway.

    To compete, Kansas should first think about businesses and people trading in the local economy and what permanent changes it would take to expand those businesses, instead of offering subsides. For sustainable economic growth, it is better to have 1,000 local businesses hire one extra person than use an incentive to bring in one business that may hire 1,000. Those jobs stay because of the permanent and positive business climate generating revenue, as opposed to jobs resulting from incentives that may leave and cost revenue dollars.

    Once achieved, economic competitiveness is not something that can then be forgotten. A major role for any economic development agency should be vigilance in seeking competitive improvements. This includes monitoring processes and procedures that make the state unproductive and advocate for their removal or reform.

    Key battles on taxes and the budget lie ahead; jobs and Kansas’s future are at stake. Let’s hope decision makers see fit to avoid merely doing things as they have always been done. Most incentives or subsidies are payments to compensate for things in the economy that need to be fixed, but nobody wants to make the necessary changes. A better economic development program is cultivating a climate where it is unnecessary to offer any special incentives to encourage business and investors to come to your state.

  • Kansas may again resort to government art

    Kansas may be ready to restore some state funding for the arts. But for reasons economic, human, and artistic, we ought to keep Kansas government out of art. Kansas should allow people themselves to decide how to spend their own money on what they think is important to them. To implement government funding of art is to override the freedom of individual choice with political and bureaucratic decisions.

    It’s puzzling as to why artists — generally a group of independent minds and free spirits — would want to reintroduce government control over the funding of their craft. Perhaps it springs from the prevailing attitude taught in our (government controlled and funded) schools and universities that government is a force for accomplishing good. While government does some good things for us, when government expands too much — like deciding which artists to spend someone else’s money on — it overreaches and tamps down individual freedom and liberty.

    The economic case for government art funding

    Supporters of government art funding make the case that government-funded art is good for business and the economy. They have an impressive-looking study titled Arts & Economic Prosperity III: The Economic Impact of the Nonprofit Arts and Culture Industry in the State of Kansas, which makes the case that “communities that invest in the arts reap the additional benefit of jobs, economic growth, and a quality of life that positions those communities to compete in our 21st century creative economy.”

    This report, however, is full of the same problems that fill most other reports of similar type. As an example, the report concludes that the return on dollars spent on the arts is “a spectacular 7-to-1 return on investment that would even thrill Wall Street veterans.” It hardly merits mention that there aren’t legitimate investments that generate this type of return in any short time frame. If these returns were in fact true and valid, we should invest more — not less — in the arts. But as we shall see, these returns are not valid in any meaningful economic sense.

    Where do these fabulous returns come from? Here’s a passage from the report that government art spending promoters rely on:

    A theater company purchases a gallon of paint from the local hardware store for $20, generating the direct economic impact of the expenditure. The hardware store then uses a portion of the aforementioned $20 to pay the sales clerk’s salary; the sales clerk respends some of the money for groceries; the grocery store uses some of the money to pay its cashier; the cashier then spends some for the utility bill; and so on. The subsequent rounds of spending are the indirect economic impacts.

    Thus, the initial expenditure by the theater company was followed by four additional rounds of spending (by the hardware store, sales clerk, grocery store, and the cashier). The effect of the theater company’s initial expenditure is the direct economic impact. The subsequent rounds of spending are all of the indirect impacts. The total impact is the sum of the direct and indirect impacts.

    The fabulous returns erroneously attributed to spending on the arts derive from this chain of spending starting at the hardware store. But there’s a problem with this reasoning: Most spending induces the same rush of economic activity. What the authors of this study fail to disclose — and what government art supporters fail to see — is that anyone who buys a gallon of paint for any reason sets off the same chain of spending. There is no difference — except that a homeowner buying paint is doing so voluntarily, while an arts organization using taxpayer-supplied money to buy the paint is using someone else’s money. Money, we might add, that is taken through the government’s power to tax.

    The study also pumps up the return on government spending on arts by noting all the other spending that arts patrons do on things like dinner before and desert after arts events. But if people kept their own money instead of being taxed to support the arts, they would spend this money, perhaps on restaurant meals, too. Most importantly, people would spend their own money on the things they value — not on what someone else values.

    This report — like most of its type that attempt to justify and promote government “investment” — focuses only on the benefits without considering secondary consequences, how these benefits are paid for, and what people would do if left to their own devices. The report, however, seems to make sense in promoting taxation and government spending on arts. This is characteristic of many arguments for government spending, as explained by Henry Hazlitt, in his masterful book Economics in One Lesson:

    While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.

    It is, as Hazlitt terms it, “the special pleading of selfish interests” that drives much of the desire for government spending on the arts. Government-funded arts advocates promote their case with these economic fallacies.

    The human and artistic case

    Besides the economic aspect of government funding of arts, there’s the artistic issue. There are very important reasons to keep government away from art. Lawrence W. Reed wrote in What’s Wrong with Government Funding of the Arts? of the harm of turning over responsibility to the government for things we value and find worthwhile:

    I can think of an endless list of desirable, enriching things in life, of which very few carry an automatic tag that says, “Must be provided by taxes and politicians.” Such things include good books, nice lawns, nutritious food, and smiling faces. A rich culture consists, as you know, of so many good things that have nothing to do with government, and thank God they don’t. We should seek to nurture those things privately and voluntarily because “private” and “voluntary” are key indicators that people are awake to them and believe in them. The surest way I know to sap the vitality of almost any worthwhile endeavor is to send a message that says, “You can slack off of that; the government will now do it.” That sort of “flight from responsibility,” frankly, is at the source of many societal ills today: many people don’t take care of their parents in their old age because a federal program will do it; others have abandoned their children because until recent welfare reforms, they’d get a bigger check if they did.

    The boosters of government arts funding in Kansas make the case that arts are important. Therefore, they say, government must be involved.

    But actually, the opposite is true. The more important to our culture we believe the arts to be, the stronger the case for getting government out of its funding. Here’s why. In a statement opposing the elimination of the Kansas Arts Commission, former executive director Llewellyn Crain explained that “The Kansas Arts Commission provides valuable seed money that leverages private funds …”

    This “seed money” effect is precisely why government should not be funding arts. David Boaz explains:

    Defenders of arts funding seem blithely unaware of this danger when they praise the role of the national endowments as an imprimatur or seal of approval on artists and arts groups. Jane Alexander says, “The Federal role is small but very vital. We are a stimulus for leveraging state, local and private money. We are a linchpin for the puzzle of arts funding, a remarkably efficient way of stimulating private money.” Drama critic Robert Brustein asks, “How could the [National Endowment for the Arts] be ‘privatized’ and still retain its purpose as a funding agency functioning as a stamp of approval for deserving art?” … I suggest that that is just the kind of power no government in a free society should have.

    We give up a lot when we turn over this power to government bureaucrats and arts commission cronies. Again I turn to David Boaz, who in his book The Politics of Freedom: Taking on The Left, The Right and Threats to Our Liberties wrote this in a chapter titled “The Separation of Art and State”:

    It is precisely because art has power, because it deals with basic human truths, that it must be kept separate from government. Government, as I noted earlier, involves the organization of coercion. In a free society coercion should be reserved only for such essential functions of government as protecting rights and punishing criminals. People should not be forced to contribute money to artistic endeavors that they may not approve, nor should artists be forced to trim their sails to meet government standards.

    Government funding of anything involves government control. That insight, of course, is part of our folk wisdom: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” “Who takes the king’s shilling sings the king’s song.”

    A few years ago Rhonda Holman of the Wichita Eagle wrote an editorial (City can be proud of its arts work, July 15, 2008 Wichita Eagle) which started with the stirring invocation “The arts fire the mind and feed the heart.” I hoped that she was going to call for less government involvement in the arts, thinking that she would argue that anything so important to man’s nature should not be placed in the hands of government.

    But she described the City of Wichita’s commitment to permanent spending on arts as “a bold and even brave investment in quality of life.” It appears that even the yearnings of our hearts and minds are subject to government bureaucratic management.

    “Government art.” Is this not a sterling example of an oxymoron? Must government weasel its way into every aspect of our lives? Governor Brownback and the Kansas legislature can do the human spirit and the people of Kansas a favor by opposing government funding of the arts.

  • In Kansas, no E-verify, please

    The hope that if we can somehow stop illegal immigrants from obtaining jobs, then unemployed Americans can go back to work, is a false hope. For that and other reasons, I can’t join with Kansas conservatives who support E-verify and other harsh anti-immigrant measures.

    The economic reality is that immigrants — legal and not — contribute to our nation’s economy. Those who believe that illegal immigrants “steal” jobs from Americans treat immigrant labor as equal to native-born workers. But that’s not the case: In many situations, if immigrant labor is not available, the jobs simply won’t be done.

    As an example, last year Georgia passed a law requiring employers to verify eligibility to work. The result? As described in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: “Thanks to the resulting labor shortage, Georgia farmers have been forced to leave millions of dollars’ worth of blueberries, onions, melons and other crops unharvested and rotting in the fields. It has also put state officials into something of a panic at the damage they’ve done to Georgia’s largest industry.”

    Kansas needs workers, too. Our agriculture secretary is seeking waivers that would allow Kansas farms to hire illegal workers. It’s not just so that farmers can pay these workers low wages. As reported in Farmers push to hire illegal immigrants: “T.J. Curtis back at Forget-Me-Not Farms has jobs available — $32,000 a year, with health care and retirement benefits.” He wants to hire 75 workers.

    Other writers have noted the importance of low-skilled laborers to our economy. Writing for the Cato Institute, Daniel Griswold explains:

    If our politicians actually did succeed in removing millions of unauthorized immigrants from the workforce, middle-class jobs now held by Americans would be in jeopardy. A shortage of low-skilled workers in the agricultural, tourism, food processing, landscaping and other sectors would mean less investment and less employment for managers, accountants, sales reps and other downstream and upstream workers.

    A 2009 study for the Cato Institute found that a 28.6 percent reduction in the number of unauthorized low-skilled immigrants in the United States through increased border and interior enforcement actually would cost U.S. households $80 billion a year. The study found that a resulting decline in immigrant labor would mean less investment, more money diverted to smuggler fees and other unproductive uses, and relatively fewer jobs further up the skills ladder. (E-Verify Threatens American Jobs and Liberties)

    Griswold also reports on the problems found in E-verify pilot programs. Half of unauthorized workers were not flagged by the system. Then, there’s the problem of the millions of legal workers who were falsely denied permission to work by E-verify. Wrote the Cato Institute’s Jim Harper: “Deemed ineligible by a database, millions each year would go pleading to the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration for the right to work.”
    Griwsold commented “Isn’t this the kind of intrusive government that tea party members oppose?”

    An economic case for immigration

    Benjamin Powell, in his article An Economic Case for Immigration explains why we ought to welcome immigrants to our country.

    To those who believe that immigrants are a “drag” on the economy, Powell explains: “Immigrants boost the overall size of the U.S. economy for the existing native-born population. Free trade in labor, like trade in goods and services, frees existing Americans to do what’s in their comparative advantage. In fact, the basic economic case for free trade in labor really isn’t different than that for trade in goods and services. Economists are in nearly universal agreement that free trade promotes national wealth.”

    The benefit is estimated at $36 billion per year — a drop in the bucket given the size of our economy. But it is a benefit, not a drag.

    As for the “taking our jobs” claim, Powell counters: “That immigrants ‘take our jobs’ is probably the most repeated and most economically ignorant objection to immigration. It’s a classic example of Bastiat’s ‘what is seen and what is not.’ Everyone can see when an immigrant takes a job that used to be held by a native-born worker. But not everyone sees the secondary consequence of the new jobs that are created because native-born labor has been freed up for more-productive uses. In the market’s process of creative destruction, jobs are created and destroyed all the time.”

    As for depressing the wages of native-born workers, Powell writes: “Economists find no evidence for widespread wage decreases. The debate on the effect of immigration on wage rates of native-born workers has, believe it or not, narrowed down to the effect on wages of high-school drop-outs. Estimates range from slightly positive to, at worst, an eight-percent fall. … Those immigrants who increase the supply of labor also demand goods and services, causing the demand for labor to increase.”

    There is the problem of illegal immigrants who commit crimes, and it’s a driving factor for many who oppose immigration, illegal or not. But a crime wave fueled by illegal immigrants is an illusion not supported by data. In the paper The Myth of Immigrant Criminality and the Paradox of Assimilation: Incarceration Rates Among Native and Foreign-Born Men, researchers concluded: “In fact, data from the census and other sources show that for every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated. This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population. What is more, these patterns have been observed consistently over the last three decennial censuses, a period that spans the current era of mass immigration, and recall similar national-level findings reported by three major government commissions during the first three decades of the 20th century.”

    A draconian immigration policy, perversely, makes it easier for criminals to enter the U.S., explains Powell: “… Right now terrorists could sneak into the country illegally while hiding among more than a million other illegal immigrants crossing the border in the desert. If a more open immigration policy were established, the legitimate workers could come through check points, freeing existing border-control enforcement to focus on finding the terrorists.”

    Right now, those who simply want to work are forced to mix in with criminals — in fact, to become criminals themselves — to enter the U.S.

    Finally, American citizens need to be concerned about the potential uses of a national database that would power the E-verify system. Cato’s Jim Harper explains:

    “Even if a national employment eligibility verification system were made workable, it is not a system we should want. Once built, this government monitoring system would soon be extended to housing, financial services, and other essentials to try to get at illegal immigrants. It would also be converted to policy goals well beyond immigration control. Direct regulatory power over American citizens would flow to the federal government. Even more information about Americans’ lives would flow into federal government databases. And Americans’ sensitive personal data would be exposed to more security threats.”

    Harper’s paper on this topic is Internal Enforcement, E-Verify, and the Road to a National ID.

  • Kansas and Wichita need pay-to-play laws

    In the wake of scandals some states and cities have passed “pay-to-play” laws. These laws may prohibit political campaign contributions by those who seek government contracts, prohibit officeholders from voting on laws that will benefit their campaign donors, or the laws may impose special disclosure requirements.

    Many people make campaign contributions to candidates whose ideals and goals they share. This is an important part of our political process. But when reading campaign finance reports for members of the Wichita City Council, one sees the same names appearing over and over, often making the maximum allowed contribution to candidates.

    And when one looks at the candidates these people contribute to, you notice that often there’s no common thread linking the political goals and ideals of the candidates. Some people contribute equally to liberal and conservative council members. But then, when these people appear in the news after having received money from the Wichita City Council, it snaps into place: These campaign donors are not donating to those whose political ideals they agree with. Instead, they’re donating so they can line their own pockets. These donors are opportunists.

    As another example, for the 2008 campaign for a bond issue for USD 259, the Wichita public school district, my analysis found that 72 percent of the contributions, both in-kind and cash, was given by contractors, architects, engineering firms, and others who directly stand to benefit from school construction. Do these companies have an especially keen interest in the education of children? I don’t think so. They are interested in themselves.

    Some states and cities have taken steps to reduce this harmful practice. New Jersey is notable for its Local Unit Pay-To-Play Law. The law affects many local units of government and the awarding of contracts having a value of over $17,500, requiring that these contracts be awarded by a “fair and open process,” which basically means a contract process open to bidding.

    Cities, too, are passing pay-to-pay laws. Notably, a recently-passed law in Dallas was in response to special treatment for real estate developers — the very issue Wichita is facing now as it prepares to pour millions into the pockets of a small group of favored — and highly subsidized — downtown developers who are generous with campaign contributions to almost all council members. Not that this is new to Wichita, as the city has often done this in the past.

    Smaller cities, too, have these laws. A charter provision of the city of Santa Ana, in Orange County, California, states: “A councilmember shall not participate in, nor use his or her official position to influence, a decision of the City Council if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, apart from its effect on the public generally or a significant portion thereof, on a recent major campaign contributor.”

    But Kansas has no such law. Certainly Wichita does not, where pay-to-play is seen by many citizens as a way of life.

    In Kansas, campaign finance reports are filed by candidates and available to citizens. But many politicians don’t want campaign contributions discussed, at least in public. Recently Wichita City Council Member Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) expressed concern over the potential award of a $6 million construction contract without an open bidding process. The contractor the city wanted to give the contract to was Key Construction, a firm that actively makes political contributions to city council members, both conservative and liberal.

    For expressing his concern, O’Donnell was roundly criticized by many council members, and especially by Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer.

    Here’s what’s interesting: Brewer and city council members say the campaign contributions don’t affect their votes. Those who regularly make contributions say they don’t do it to influence the council. Therefore, it seems that there should be no opposition to a pay-to-play law in Wichita — or the entire state — like the one in Santa Ana.

    But until we get such a law, I can understand how Wichita city council members don’t want to discuss their campaign contributions from those they’re about to vote to give money to. It’s not about supporting political ideologies — liberal, moderate, or conservative. It’s about opportunists seeking money from government.

    The practice stinks. It causes citizens to be cynical of their government and withdraw from participation in civic affairs. It causes government to grow at the expense of taxpayers. Pay-to-play laws can help reverse these trends.

    You may download a printable copy of this article at Kansas Needs Pay-to-Play Laws.

  • Kansas STAR bonds vote a test for capitalism

    Update: The bill passed in the House of Representatives 92 to 31. A similar bill passed in the Senate 27 to 13.

    An upcoming vote in the Kansas House of Representatives will let Kansans know who is truly in favor of economic freedom, limited government, and free market capitalism — and who favors crony capitalism instead.

    The bill is HR 2561: Extension of the STAR bonds financing act sunset provision regarding STAR bond projects. Under current law, the Kansas STAR bonds program will expire on July 1, 2012. This bill extends the program’s life for five years.

    The STAR bonds program allows increases in sales tax revenue to be directed to private interests rather than feeding the state treasury. The mechanism is that local governments like cities can sell bonds and give the proceeds to developers. Then, increments in sales tax revenues are used to make bond payments.

    In economic impact and effect, the STAR bonds program is a government spending program. Except: Like many spending programs implemented through the tax system, legislative appropriations are not required. No one has to vote to spend on a specific project. Can you imagine the legislature voting to grant $50 million over a period of years to a proposed development in northeast Wichita? That doesn’t seem likely. Few members would want to withstand the scrutiny of having voted in favor of such blatant cronyism.

    But under tax expenditure programs like STAR bonds, that’s exactly what happens — except for the legislative voting part.

    Government spending programs like STAR bonds are sold to legislators as jobs programs. Development, it is said, will not happen unless project developers receive incentives through these spending programs. Since no legislator wants to be seen voting against jobs, many are susceptible to the seductive promise of jobs.

    But often these same legislators are in favor of tax cuts to create jobs. This is the case in the Kansas House, where many Republican members are in favor of reducing the state’s income tax as a way of creating economic growth and jobs. On this issue, these members are correct.

    But many of the same members are, I am told, in favor of tax expenditure programs like the STAR bonds program. These two positions cannot be reconciled. If government taxing and spending is bad, it is especially bad when part of tax expenditure programs like STAR bonds. And there’s plenty of evidence that government spending and taxation is a drag on the economy.

    It’s not just legislators that are holding these incongruous views. Secretary of Commerce Pat George is promoting the STAR bonds program to legislators. He wouldn’t do that unless Governor Sam Brownback supported the program.

    Last year at the time Brownback and a new, purportedly more conservative Kansas House took office, I wondered whether Kansas would pursue a business-friendly or capitalism-friendly path: “Plans for the Kansas Republican Party to make Kansas government more friendly to business run the risk of creating false, or crony capitalism instead of an environment of genuine growth opportunity for all business.” I quoted John Stossel:

    The word “capitalism” is used in two contradictory ways. Sometimes it’s used to mean the free market, or laissez faire. Other times it’s used to mean today’s government-guided economy. Logically, “capitalism” can’t be both things. Either markets are free or government controls them. We can’t have it both ways.

    The truth is that we don’t have a free market — government regulation and management are pervasive — so it’s misleading to say that “capitalism” caused today’s problems. The free market is innocent.

    But it’s fair to say that crony capitalism created the economic mess.

    But wait, you may say: Isn’t business and free-market capitalism the same thing? Not at all. Here’s what Milton Friedman had to say: “There’s a widespread belief and common conception that somehow or other business and economics are the same, that those people who are in favor of a free market are also in favor of everything that big business does. And those of us who have defended a free market have, over a long period of time, become accustomed to being called apologists for big business. But nothing could be farther from the truth. There’s a real distinction between being in favor of free markets and being in favor of whatever business does.” (emphasis added.)

    Friedman also knew very well of the discipline of free markets and how business will try to avoid it: “The great virtue of free enterprise is that it forces existing businesses to meet the test of the market continuously, to produce products that meet consumer demands at lowest cost, or else be driven from the market. It is a profit-and-loss system. Naturally, existing businesses generally prefer to keep out competitors in other ways. That is why the business community, despite its rhetoric, has so often been a major enemy of truly free enterprise.”

    The danger of Kansas government having a friendly relationship with Kansas business is that the state will circumvent free markets and promote crony, or false, capitalism in Kansas. It’s something that we need to be on the watch for. The vote on the STAR bonds project will let us know how our state is proceeding. If the vote goes as sources tell me, the verdict is clear: Kansas legislators — including many purported fiscal conservatives — prefer crony capitalism over free enterprise and genuine capitalism.

    The problem

    Government bureaucrats and politicians promote programs like STAR bonds as targeted investment in our economic future. They believe that they have the ability to select which companies are worthy of public investment, and which are not. It’s a form of centralized planning by the state that shapes the future direction of the Kansas economy.

    Arnold King has written about the ability of government experts to decide what investments should be made with public funds. There’s a problem with knowledge and power:

    As Hayek pointed out, knowledge that is important in the economy is dispersed. Consumers understand their own wants and business managers understand their technological opportunities and constraints to a greater degree than they can articulate and to a far greater degree than experts can understand and absorb.

    When knowledge is dispersed but power is concentrated, I call this the knowledge-power discrepancy. Such discrepancies can arise in large firms, where CEOs can fail to appreciate the significance of what is known by some of their subordinates. … With government experts, the knowledge-power discrepancy is particularly acute.

    Despite this knowledge problem, Kansas legislators are willing to give power to bureaucrats in the Department of Commerce who feel they have the necessary knowledge to direct the investment of public funds. One thing is for sure: the state and its bureaucrats have the power to make these investments. They just don’t have — they can’t have — the knowledge as to whether these are wise.

    What to do

    The STAR bonds program is an “active investor” approach to economic development. Its government spending on business leads to taxes that others have to pay. That has a harmful effect on other business, both existing and those that wish to form.

    Professor Art Hall of the Center for Applied Economics at the Kansas University School of Business is critical of this approach to economic development. In his paper Embracing Dynamism: The Next Phase in Kansas Economic Development Policy, Hall quotes Alan Peters and Peter Fisher: “The most fundamental problem is that many public officials appear to believe that they can influence the course of their state and local economies through incentives and subsidies to a degree far beyond anything supported by even the most optimistic evidence. We need to begin by lowering expectations about their ability to micro-manage economic growth and making the case for a more sensible view of the role of government — providing foundations for growth through sound fiscal practices, quality public infrastructure, and good education systems — and then letting the economy take care of itself.”

    In the same paper, Hall writes this regarding “benchmarking” — the bidding wars for large employers that Kansas and many of its cities employ: “Kansas can break out of the benchmarking race by developing a strategy built on embracing dynamism. Such a strategy, far from losing opportunity, can distinguish itself by building unique capabilities that create a different mix of value that can enhance the probability of long-term economic success through enhanced opportunity. Embracing dynamism can change how Kansas plays the game.”

    In making his argument, Hall cites research on the futility of chasing large employers as an economic development strategy: “Large-employer businesses have no measurable net economic effect on local economies when properly measured. To quote from the most comprehensive study: ‘The primary finding is that the location of a large firm has no measurable net economic effect on local economies when the entire dynamic of location effects is taken into account. Thus, the siting of large firms that are the target of aggressive recruitment efforts fails to create positive private sector gains and likely does not generate significant public revenue gains either.’”

    There is also substantial research that is it young firms — distinguished from small business in general — that are the engine of economic growth for the future. We can’t detect which of the young firms will blossom into major success — or even small-scale successes. The only way to nurture them is through economic policies that all companies can benefit from. Reducing tax rates is an example of such a policy. Government spending on specific companies through programs like STAR bonds is an example of precisely the wrong policy.

    We need to move away from economic development based on this active investor approach. We need to advocate for policies at all levels of government that lead to sustainable economic development. We need political leaders who have the wisdom to realize this, and the courage to act appropriately. Which is to say, to not act in most circumstances.

  • Reform KPERS now for the future

    By Ron Estes, Kansas State Treasurer

    The Kansas Public Employee Retirement System (KPERS) has been a major topic of discussion for the last several years. As your State Treasurer, I am a member of the KPERS Board. The Board has a fiduciary responsibility to manage the assets for the benefits of the members, and not to make positions on the legal structure. But as State Treasurer (and a Tier 1 KPERS member), I encourage the Legislature and the Governor to pass some necessary changes this year.

    KPERS is a valuable benefit for state employees, local school employees, and most local government employees. It serves over 260,000 active and inactive members and retirees. As you have heard, KPERS is projected to be $8.3 Billion short in paying promised benefits to all current employees and retirees. But let me reassure you that KPERS has $13.5 Billion in assets (approximately 62% of what is needed) today — enough to pay benefits for all current retirees and most employees that will retire in the next 10-15 years. KPERS needs a solution that addresses two critical issues: (1) makes the system solvent for all current employees and (2) provides a stable plan for all future employees. If we don’t take action now, we are at risk of having our bond rating lowered and KPERS will consume even more of our state budget at the expense of other vital state services to Kansans in the future.

    Several things have caused our retirement system to get in this condition, but the primary reason is the Legislature was given some bad advice in 1993. They were told the benefits could be raised and the contributions held low for the employers and the employees (at 4% of salary). By the late 1990’s the Legislature saw contribution levels were not high enough, and began to raise them. In order to not impact the state and local budgets too harshly they limited the annual increases. Finally, in 2009 they were forced to raise the employee contributions and created the Tier 2 level.

    Even though the KPERS investments have achieved the 8% investment rate of return over the last 30 years, these changes have not been enough to adequately fund the plan.

    I have followed the process in the legislature and the Study Commission very closely and provided input as the process has moved forward. Recently, the House of Representatives passed a bill that addresses these critical issues. House Substitute for Senate Bill 259 increases the contribution amount for the state and local government employers. It also sets requirements for Tier 1 and Tier 2 employees to be equal. Tier 1 employees will contribute at a 6% rate in exchange for an increase in benefits to 1.85% times each year worked. Tier 2 employees will continue to contribute 6% and will receive an increase in benefits to 1.85% times each year worked in exchange for the cost of living adjustment.

    In addition, the bill creates a Tier 3 for new employees hired after 2014. These new employees would have a choice to pick a Defined Contribution (DC) Option similar to a 401(k) in private industry or a Cash Balance Option. The DC Option would allow employees to contribute 6% to their own account and make their own investment decisions. In today’s world it is imperative that we give state employees the freedom and flexibility to control their retirement future.

    In the Cash Balance Option, an employee contributes 6% and the employer adds up to 4%. The employee is guaranteed a 5% return as their benefit. This is an option for employees who plan a long term career with a state or local government employer.

    I encourage the Legislature to pass and the Governor to sign a bill like 259. It is not the exact solution I would have preferred and I expect further changes as this process moves forward, but it provides choices for future employees and continues benefits promised to existing employees. It addresses both critical issues by not digging the hole any deeper for future employees, empowers those employees who wish to take control of their own retirement by giving them the flexibility to do so, and begins to close the existing funding gap. Significant structural KPERS reform must happen this year. Our state cannot afford to put this off yet again.

  • Kansas and Wichita lag the nation in tax costs

    If we in Kansas and Wichita wonder why our economic growth is slow and our economic development programs don’t seem to be producing results, there is now data to answer the question why: Our tax rates are high — way too high.

    This week the Tax Foundation released a report that examines the tax costs on business in the states and in selected cities in each state. The news for Kansas is worse than merely bad, as our state couldn’t have performed much worse: Kansas ranks 47th among the states for tax costs for mature business firms, and 48th for new firms.

    The report is Location Matters: A Comparative Analysis of State Tax Costs on Business.

    The study is unusual in that it looks at the impact of states’ tax burden on mature and new firms. This, according to report authors, “allows us to understand the effects of state tax incentives compared to a state’s core tax system.” In further explanation, the authors write: “The second measure is for the tax burden faced by newly established operations, those that have been in operation less than three years. This represents a state’s competitiveness after we have taken into account the various tax incentive programs it makes available to new investments.”

    The report also looks at the tax costs for specific types of business firms. For Kansas, some individual results are better than overall, but still not good. For a mature corporate headquarters, Kansas ranks 30th. For locating a new corporate headquarters — one that would benefit from tax incentive programs — Kansas ranked 42nd. For a mature research and development facility, 46th; while new is ranked 49th. For a mature retail store, 38th, while new is ranked 45th.

    There are more categories. Kansas ranks well in none.

    The report also looked at two cities in each state, a major city and a mid-size city. For Kansas, the two cities are Wichita and Topeka.

    Among the 50 cities chosen, Wichita ranks 30th for a mature corporate headquarters, but 42nd for a new corporate headquarters.

    For a mature research and development facility, Wichita ranks 46th, and 49th for a new facility.

    For a mature and new retail store, Wichita ranks 38th and 45th, respectively.

    For a mature and new call center, Wichita ranks 43rd and 47th, respectively.

    In its summary for Kansas, the authors note the fecklessness of Kansas economic development incentives: “Kansas offers among the most generous property tax abatements and investment tax credits across most firm types, yet these incentives seem to have little impact on the state’s rankings for new operations.”

    Kansas tax cost compared to neighbors. Click here for a larger version.

    It’s also useful to compare Kansas to our neighbors. The comparison is not favorable for Kansas.

    More evidence of failure

    Recently the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition issued its annual report on its economic development activities for the year. This report shows us that power of government to influence economic development is weak. In its recent press release, the organization claimed to have created 1,509 jobs in Sedgwick County during 2011. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the labor force in Sedgwick County in 2011 was 253,940 persons. So the jobs created by GWEDC’s actions amounted to 0.59 percent of the labor force. This is a very small fraction, and other economic events are likely to overwhelm these efforts.

    In his 2012 State of the City address, Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer took credit for creating a similar percentage of jobs in Wichita.

    The report by the Tax Foundation helps us understand why the economic development efforts of GWEDC, Sedgwick County, and Wichita are not working well: Our tax costs are too high.

    While economic development incentives can help reduce the cost of taxes for selected firms, incentives don’t help the many firms that don’t receive them. In fact, the cost of these incentives is harmful to other firms. The Tax Foundation report points to this harm: “While many state officials view tax incentives as a necessary tool in their state’s ability to be competitive, others are beginning to question the cost-benefit of incentives and whether they are fair to mature firms that are paying full freight. Indeed, there is growing animosity among many business owners and executives to the generous tax incentives enjoyed by some of their direct competitors.”

    But there is one incentive that can be offered to all firms: Reduce tax costs for everyone. The policy of reducing tax costs for the selected few is not working. This “active investor” approach to economic development is what has led companies in Wichita and Kansas escaping hundreds of millions in taxes — taxes that others have to pay. That has a harmful effect on other business, both existing and those that wish to form.

    Professor Art Hall of the Center for Applied Economics at the Kansas University School of Business is critical of this approach to economic development. In his paper Embracing Dynamism: The Next Phase in Kansas Economic Development Policy, Hall quotes Alan Peters and Peter Fisher: “The most fundamental problem is that many public officials appear to believe that they can influence the course of their state and local economies through incentives and subsidies to a degree far beyond anything supported by even the most optimistic evidence. We need to begin by lowering expectations about their ability to micro-manage economic growth and making the case for a more sensible view of the role of government — providing foundations for growth through sound fiscal practices, quality public infrastructure, and good education systems — and then letting the economy take care of itself.”

    In the same paper, Hall writes this regarding “benchmarking” — the bidding wars for large employers that Wichita and Kansas has been pursuing and which Wichita’s Brewer wants to step up: “Kansas can break out of the benchmarking race by developing a strategy built on embracing dynamism. Such a strategy, far from losing opportunity, can distinguish itself by building unique capabilities that create a different mix of value that can enhance the probability of long-term economic success through enhanced opportunity. Embracing dynamism can change how Kansas plays the game.”

    In making his argument, Hall cites research on the futility of chasing large employers as an economic development strategy: “Large-employer businesses have no measurable net economic effect on local economies when properly measured. To quote from the most comprehensive study: ‘The primary finding is that the location of a large firm has no measurable net economic effect on local economies when the entire dynamic of location effects is taken into account. Thus, the siting of large firms that are the target of aggressive recruitment efforts fails to create positive private sector gains and likely does not generate significant public revenue gains either.’”

    There is also substantial research that is it young firms — distinguished from small business in general — that are the engine of economic growth for the future. We can’t detect which of the young firms will blossom into major success — or even small-scale successes. The only way to nurture them is through economic policies that all companies can benefit from. Reducing tax rates is an example of such a policy. Abating taxes for specific companies through programs like IRBs is an example of precisely the wrong policy.

    We need to move away from economic development based on this active investor approach. We need to advocate for policies — at Wichita City Hall, at the Sedgwick County Commission, and at the Kansas Statehouse — that lead to sustainable economic development. We need political leaders who have the wisdom to realize this, and the courage to act appropriately. Which is to say, to not act in most circumstances, except to reduce the cost of government for everyone.

  • An ill wind blows in Kansas: The politics of renewable energy

    Kansas Representative Charlotte O’Hara, who represents Kansas House District 27 in southern Johnson County, offers a look at the politics surrounding wind power in Kansas. Besides O’Neal, other prominent supporters of renewable energy in Kansas include Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, who has been vocal in his support of wind power. So too has been Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer, who has been busy promoting Wichita as a site for wind energy-related industry. Contrast this with U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo of Wichita, who has introduced legislation to end all tax credits related to energy production.

    An ill wind blows in Kansas: The politics of renewable energy

    By Kansas Representative Charlotte O’Hara

    The world of Topeka politics continue to amaze, frustrate, entertain and humor me in my second year of representing the 27th District. Case in point:

    On Tuesday of this week during the Republican Caucus discussion of HB 2446 (concerning the expansion of definition of alternative energy to include storage facilities/devices) this fact came to light: The Kansas Legislature, in 2009, passed the Renewable Energy Standards Act (KSA 66-1258), which requires 10 percent of our power companies’ capacity to be from renewable energy sources by 2011, 15 percent in 2016 and 20 percent in 2020.

    So, being the conservative that I am, I suggested an amendment that would freeze renewable energy standards to the current 10 percent. Rep. Dennis Hedke carried the amendment on the floor. The amendment received 43 votes.

    Only 43 out of 125 representatives voted to stop strangling the Kansas economy and burdening consumers with high energy costs of these draconian requirements. According to the Heritage Foundation, just a 15% renewable energy mandate would increase electricity prices for consumers by as much as 11.3 percent!

    After the defeat of the amendment, Rep. Forrest Knox introduced an amendment that would tie the freeze to licensing of the Holcomb Power Plant, which currently has been stopped by federal court and another environmental impact study has been ordered. The Knox amendment received 65 votes, a majority. However Speaker of the House Mike O’Neal (who voted against both amendments) interceded and referred the amended bill, HB 2446, back to committee (with the approval of the House members) and removing it from final action.

    So, why would Speaker O’Neal oppose a freeze at the current 10% on the Kansas Renewable Standard Act? Well, let’s see. Could it possibly be that these required increased standards in Kansas law is why Siemens chose Hutchinson (O’Neal’s district) in 2009 to locate a $35 million wind turbine plant? Is this the type of crony capitalism we want to build our economic future on in Kansas?

    Another wrinkle in the future of renewable energy is that extension of federal tax credits is in doubt. Those credits currently subsidize renewables by 2.1 cents per kw. Without the federal, state and local tax incentives, abatements and exemptions, the economics of renewable energy collapses.

    Here is a link to Heritage Foundation on this issue of renewable energy subsidies: No More Energy Subsidies: Prevent the New, Repeal the Old.

    It always puzzles me why after the fall of the Soviet Union, government mandated / subsidized / incentivized industries continue to flourish in the U.S. and, in particular, here in our own Kansas backyard.

    So, if you would like to register your concerns about the Speaker’s action to circumvent final action on HB 2446, which as amended would freeze Kansas Renewable Energy Act requirement at 10 percent and stop it from going to 20 percent, call his office: 785-296-2302 or e-mail at Mike.ONeal@house.ks.gov